Talk:List of tallest structures

World's Tallest Structures

Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fonzy, this should really be merged with World's tallest structures. This is quite a complex issue and has already been extensively discussed. --Robert Merkel 23:03 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

hmmm, i tkae structures as anything built by man radio masts etc but thsi list WILL get very long which is why i put it on its owbn page.

But even the very definition of what constitutes the height of a structure gets confusing. Please at least state the definition you're working off (and be careful that any figures you use are according to the same definition), and try to work with the existing article (which is rather a good one) rather than duplicating it. --Robert Merkel 23:14 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I am nto dulicating the article i am making alist of tall structures nd yes i am aware of height diff defs.

Emley Moor radio mast in the UK is a 330m tall freestanding structure, and I think that makes it the largest self-supporting structure in Britain. I notice it's not on this list. If this list isn't complete, perhaps it shouldn't be numbered like it is? -Nommo

[1] calls it the "tallest television mast in England", and helpfully provides a picture where you can hardly see the damn thing. Anyway, I agree that numbering an incomplete list isn't a good idea, so I'll change them to bullet-points, and I'll add Emley Moor while I'm at it. --Camembert

---

Why was this list changed from an ordered list to and unordered list? In otherwords there use to be numbers next to each entry now there are just diamond shapes. I thought it looked better with the numbers. -- Popsracer 00:59 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See the talk about two inches above this ;-) The list is still ordered (inasmuch as the tallest is at the top, the smallest at the bottom), it just isn't numbered. Having numbers suggests that the structure next to the number 123 is the 123rd tallest structure in the world, but as the list isn't complete, that isn't necessarily the case. The numbers are misleading, in other words. --Camembert

---

This page should be updated using [page] which although it is in German at least uses a consistent definition. This list at the top goes be structural top and by the bottom is using antenna heights. Rmhermen 13:40, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC) Our page at List of skyscrapers is a good source too. The German one is very incomplete below 300m. I may get around to this myself. Rmhermen 13:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Still too long

This list is very long, so I think that the list should be kept for buildings 450m+, because otherwise it is too long. ~ {{{1}}} Ghelæ {{{2}}}^talk_contribs 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be kept down to 350 metres, because otherwise the list would only contain four structures in Europe and no existing structure in the European Union!

Idea: make two lists. One with structures of any kind taller than 350 metres, which may get long and a second one with buildings and free-standing towers taller than 350 metres.

The long list is therefore sensitive, because it allows many interesting rankings. I do not believe, that it will grow much, although there may be surely some supertall guyed radio towers in Russia and China no data available. User:Zonk43

Yeah, that's a good idea too. List of tallest structures in the world and List of tallest buildings and free-standing towers. Hm. ~ {{{1}}} Ghelæ {{{2}}}^talk_contribs 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, make a list for structures taller than 1,476 feet. Bye --Starionwolf 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

bgcolor

Is there a reason why three of the entries have a red tint to them? Lovok 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Structures taller than 350 metres under construction

There may be still more structures taller than 350 metres under construction. According to the FCC-database [2], there are many radio masts in the USA planned with pinnacle heights greater than 350 metres. If you know one, that is under construction, then add it to the list under Structures taller than 350 metres under construction

Possible further supertall structures

Find out the height of high-power transmitters used for

• LORAN-C
• CHAYKA
• RSDN-20

If they are taller than 350 metres add them to the list!

300 meter limit

The minimum height limit should be kept at 300m as this could include famous structures which are between 300-350 meters like the Eiffel Tower,Japan's Tokyo Tower, New Zealand's Sky Tower etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.231.94 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Famousness is no subcriteria of Tallness and thus irrelevant for this table. 84.177.150.245 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it does provide a frame of reference for people considering the list. How many times have things of great height been described in terms of Eiffel Towers, Everests or Empire State Buildings? Demi ^T/_C 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all structures taller than 555m are guyed masts or drilling platforms both in the United states. If you perceive "tallest" at such a strict level, only those are relevant. 82.212.63.18 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the List of tallest structures should contain no more than 90 entries. 84.177.167.69 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?Spartaz 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size 84.177.167.69 13:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

201 kilobytes long is rediculous. I'm cutting it down to only those over 350 meters. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This merge will help to keep Wikipedia simpler.--Jorfer 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is about the merge with list of towers. Simply put impossible. That list alone is already far too long, merging it into this list will result in an unreadable list of literally thousands and thousands of structures. Arnoutf 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As if this list isn't long enough already, and it is unlikely (though not impossible) that their are many more structures listed in their then here, but I could be proved wrong.--Jorfer 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think it is not a good idea. I have been struggling to keep the list of towers list clean (by removing masts, electric wire pylon, statues etc etc) and it is still a list that (IMHO) is way too long for practical use; for encyclopedic / browsing use. Merging that would only make things worse. To be honest I think the list in this article would benefit from focussing (what's in but especially what's out) rather than expansion. For example you could argue that of each type of structure only the top 10 should be taken in this list (I would be happy for the top 10 towers to be included); with the separate lists developed in their own right.Arnoutf 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the full list is not a bad idea, but I am not saying to expand the lists. These lists are so similar that merging pretty much just involves a redirect. Just use Ctrl+F to see how many entries from the masts and towers are already on here.--Jorfer 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I began the merge for list of masts due to lack of opposition and the obvious overlapping between them.--Jorfer 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged List of tallest structures in the world by type of use due to lack of opposition.--Jorfer 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my support to merge list of towers as most of the towers are outside of the height range of this article.--Jorfer 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Masts

The following was merged from the List of Masts talk page:

Merger nomination

The table of radio masts in the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world article is not nearly as exhaustive as this one, not even for the ones above 600 meters; however, it's entirely possible some of the masts in that table are not listed here. Therefore, that table should be merged into this one; even to copy the over-600 meter section of this article into the other one would overwhelm what is already a long article. --RBBrittain 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that article should be merged into this one so long as each entry is examined first to see that it meets the criteria of this article. Hmains 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oldest talk

The text at the top of this page should probably be moved out of this article and into something like mast (tower). —User:Mulad (talk) 03:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Please check, if there is not listed any mast of the US under different names!

Try to find out all masts taller than 500 metres!

Emley Moor TV Tower and uperstacks are not guyed and belong to List of towers.

Please put the article on a correct form!

---

The word "mast" is never used for broadcasting towers in the US or Canada. 18.26.0.18 06:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shoreview cluster

I'm having difficulty tracking down any heights, but there is a cluster of towers in Shoreview, Minnesota that are very tall. One that collapsed while under construction in 1971 was 1285 feet tall, according to [3], and one currently in existence is said to be 1400 feet tall, though I'm not sure how precise that height is. —User:Mulad (talk) 01:29, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of catastrophic collapses of masts

At transmission tower there is an (incomplete) liste of mast collapse catastrophes. Please make this list complete!

That is now on its own page at Radio masts and towers - catastrophic collapses--Spliced 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Identity unclear

Masts withe the comment (identity unclear) cannot be found by the help of http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp . Perhaps they are identic with other masts in the table! Check these masts!

Article naming

A lot of these seem to be poorly named. Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport, from what I can tell from google, should probably be [[Pinnacle Towers tower (Mooringsport)]], as "Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport" gets no hits, and "Pinnacle Towers Tower" doesn't seem to be a proper name either, just a descriptor for a tower owned by "Pinnacle Towers". ~~~~

Planned towers

I am removing articles on planned towers because wikipedia has a policy that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dave the Red (talk) 05:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

KWTV Mast

Was KWTV Mast rebuilt in 1986? According to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrResults.jsp?searchType=TRL there is no mast from a height around 480 metres built in 1954!

• I just noticed two duplicate entries for the KWTV Mast/Griffin Television Tower myself...with differing heights (1576 ft vs 1572 ft) and of course different construction dates. I have not found any evidence (aside from the FCC database) that indicates that it was built in 1986, and I'm not sure what exactly the FCC's date means. Therefore, I deleted one of the duplicate entries on this page. If you'd like to discuss this any further discuss it below or let me know on my talk page. Scootey (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic List!

The list is, I must say very fantastic! I saw never such a detailed list! But please extend the table as follow:

First Column: Name of mast Second Column: Town where mast is Third Column: Country where mast is Fourth Column: Year of Built Fifth Column: Use (longwave, mediumwave, UHF/VHF, meteorological/scientific experiments)

Skyguy

Policy discussion on mast articles

A policy discussion has been opened here to examine the question of how best to manage Wikipedia's growing collection of mast articles.

The proposal is to extend the table in this article (List of masts) and merge the information (location, coordinates, owner, purpose) into additional table columns.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy discussion seems to be leaning heavily towards merging many of the mast articles into the existing table. Several proposed formats for the merged table are being discussed at List of masts/Sample tables. Comments and proposals are encouraged. What do people use these tables for? What are we missing? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Article format

Hi all.

This article doesn't really follow Wikipedia convention for List of... articles. Usually, such articles have—at most— a couple of paragraphs of introductory material describing the nature of the list. Lengthy descriptive material is most often placed in the main article on the topic. For the List of masts, this material belongs in Radio mast. By merging the content there, we avoid duplicating content and effort between the two articles. Also, this article already has some truly gigantic tables; shortening the list article certainly wouldn't hurt....

If one our resident mast experts would like to merge the content from here over into radio mast, that would be great. If nobody steps up, I'll take a (nonexpert) stab at it myself. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Further columns

Table contains now columns (town and remarks)

Russian 460 metre mast

Try to find out more about the Russian 460 metre radio mast

Wind turbines

These have been overlooked and need to be added. Sub-200m. Sleigh 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Congratulations and thanks to User:Ksax on finally doing the merge. I would prefer the name List of masts though - it's consistent with other lists in Wikipedia. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dismantled/collapsed masts

Added a new section above, as ex-masts, while interesting (and I'm not suggesting removing them completely) should not be in the main tables. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a cutoff

It's a nonsense to have a section titled "Masts shorter than 200 meters". That could include every mast ever built. This article desperately needs an overall inclusion criteria. I suggest 300 meters. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've been bold and removed masts less than 300 m -- I@n ≡ talk 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you! It was necessary!

Cutoff 200m?

would it be ok if i made the cutoff for 200 meters?

please put planned list back on...with catch

Could you please put the planned tower list back on? Put it on only if it has a license to build approved from the FCC or something of that nature. Thank you!

• I have no idea what you asking -- I@n ≡ talk 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to know which towers are planning to go up, if they are known to be going up by a published source. This is to obey the rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Cannot the complete list be saved?

Is it impossible to save the complete list in a sensitive way? Why not to move it into Wikisource? Would be a good idea!

Please note that Wikisource no longer accepts reference data, including tables of data or lists, per its inclusion guidelines. I've deleted a page recently created there with this list. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Still failing to see the point

There are 14,000 broadcast stations just in the United States, and a good number of them have tall towers. That doesn't make the towers in themselves notable ot encyclopedic. Having a list of them is at least arguable (although you can find them just as easily in ASRS which is not only an official source but in the public domain). As someone who has both seen and written about a lot of broadcast facilities, I don't see the point of dumping all this data into WP without a great deal more editorial effort, even if Wiki is not paper. (And I would note that many of the stubs about U.S. towers were clearly created by someone who had no knowledge of them beyond what is shown in ASRS—might as well just name the articles "Antenna structure number 1023456" and so on—and did not write them in American English.) I believe these articles are forever destined to be of very low average quality. (Speaking only of the U.S. towers as I have no direct knowledge to evaluate the articles about other countries' towers.) 121a0012 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for these stubs to exist. I can just about see the reason for this list, but the data in the stubs should just be in the list (as I think it is) and the stubs tidied away to the great e-bin. Skittle 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of the stubs. It's eating bandwidth and most of these towers are not notable at all. --Zpb52 05:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started a "special" AfD for the stubs, using this article as a kind of anchor. This deletion request does 'not include the List of masts article itself.

If we're going to be stuck with all these articles

It would be good if editors familiar with the industry and the areas where these towers are located would fix the article names. Most of them appear to have been made up by whomever started this article, who clearly was not a native English speaker nor a U.S. broadcast engineer. (I would also point out that the "mast versus tower" confusion does not exist among the engineers I know -- they are universally "towers". "Mast" means something else. This and related articles currently privilege civil-engineering jargon over broadcast-engineering jargon, which seems an inappropriate choice to me. [Of course, they also privilege en_GB usage over en_US usage, which is so commonplace in WP as to be hardly noticeable even if still irritating.]) 121a0012 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup - Height inaccuracies

Most of the heights given in feet are way off, especially those towards the bottom of the list. Mgiganteus1 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

Tagged this article for cleanup because of this problem. TRosenbaum 14:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

LORAN-C, CHAYKA, RSDN-20

There may be still masts taller than 300 metres used for LORAN-C, CHAYKA and RSDN-20. Fnd out the height of these towers!

Linking

Is there a reason for having these linked when the individual articles are not independently notable and in most cases do not warrant separate articles? —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the articles exist, they should be linked. Some are definitely notable, such as the Warsaw Radio Mast. If you don't think they deserve separate articles then AfD them. Mgiganteus1 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I came here is that about thirty of them were just deleted on AfD. I don't know if they were all linked from this list, but the red links here encourage others to create and re-create articles that end up AfDed, and then deleted again after re-creation; duplicate effort. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure

Info from deleted articels is brought here if appropraite. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33 9 January 2007 (GMT).

I find this hard to believe?

The Balashikha Transmission Mast is the tallest mast outside of the USA? There are no other countries in the world with masts higher than 460 m? 141.157.73.48 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously yes, although, there may exist some other guyed masts in former Soviet Union or China, which are taller. It would be good to find out the height of as much towers and masts in former Soviet Union as possible.

Kilometer-tall solar tower in Australia

This might be worth keeping an eye on. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/02/66694

There are a few other sources to back this up, though the company itself is still in the preliminary phases. At any rate, it should be quite tall and could very well be taller than The Burj or any guyed mast. 207.43.79.22 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Seperate list for Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. (marked amber at this time)

I advocate for putting Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. installations (marked amber) into a seperate table and remove them from this table. Reason: There are too many and they make this list too long, too unreadable and too insignificant. 91.35.152.192 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is POV bias highlighting US-only installations. If you highlight, it should be by type, or country, not just US guyed masts. 70.51.11.203 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Add geographical coordnates to all

Add geographical coordinates to all masts and structures in the list. This would allow to have a look at them by Google Maps.

Coordinates are available in the FCC-database. For most other structures, they are in the articles.

Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. --Jklamo 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of mast stubs

Would it not be possible to undelete the deleted mast articles and put them in a chapter to the community where the mast stands? Especially for the masts in North America this would be a great idea!

KCPT Tower in Kansas City

The KCPT tower is not guyed. It is a 4 sided free standing structure.

KCPT Tower is 317.6 metres tall. The 372 metres tall tower at Kansas City, Missouri with FCC-Entry http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=617913 at 39°4'58"N 94°28'50"W is a guyed mast. See on http://www.wikimapia.org/5165414/Kansas_City_Public_Broadcasting_Tower .

Again a reason why coordinates should be added!

Add coordinates

Please add the geographical coordinates to all structures, if available. For radio masts and radio towers in USA you can find them in the FCC-database. For other structures extract them their article or Wikimapia.

Ok, i am repating again:

Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. Article is too big without them, place for coors is in each strctrure's artile. I am commenting them, until consensus reached about adding them. --Jklamo 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But not for all structures exist an article any more!

• Possibility 1: Undelete of all articles.
• Possibility 2: Adding coordinates to list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.121.9 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not blame this article about wikipedia deletion policy. List is too big now, coors can be found at List of tallest structures in the United States or List of tallest structures in the United States by height. --Jklamo 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

The only images in this article should be of truly important structures around the world. This article is about the tallest in the world and not a list of the tallest structures by city. Therfore, an image of a building in Las Vegas should not be included. --Leitmanp 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Jklamo 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely long. The addition of images will make it even longer and slower to load. There should only be one image, and it should be of the tallest man-made structure in history. The inclusion of a gallery is not what this page is about. It is a list of the structures, and not a gallery of them. Also, if people want a picture of a specific structure, they can select the link to the article and find some pictures. --Leitmanp 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

cutoff proposal

Because artile is 143 kb long, so it has problems described at Wikipedia:Article size, i think that it must be divided up. My proposal is to use 400 m limit and move 400-less content to another article. Share your opinion. --Jklamo (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea. The article is too long and shortening it would be the best thing to do. --Leitmanp (talk|contributions) 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai as of March 1, 2008

The Burj Dubai is now 611.3 meters tall as of March 1, 2008. Look at Burj Dubai Skyscraper.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But, that it not a trustworthy source. The developer (Emaar) has not made any official statements regarding the Burj Dubai's status since 5 February 2008. I have reverted your edits because we should only base the current height of the Burj Dubai on official sources. Do not change the height back without discussing it here on the talk page, or without checking the height listed at www.burjdubai.com. For more information about this, please see Talk:Burj Dubai#Height in early March 2008. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Section organization by height

Maldek has been insisting that the first section that lists structures should be renamed from "Structures (past or present) taller than 600 m (1,969 ft)" to "Structures (past or present) between 600 and 650 m (1,968.503 ft and 2,132.545 ft)." The reasoning according to Maldek is that we need to maintain consistency among all the sections and that the Burj Dubai will soon be taller than 650 m and it should be put in its own section. Jklamo and I have reverted these changes. I cannot speak for Jklamo, but I think there is no reason to create a new section if only one structure will be in it. I would rather keep one section for structures greater than 600 m until there are enough structures greater than 650 m to create a new section. I would like to know what other editors think about this subject. I would rather create consensus on the talk page than continuing an edit war. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, it's pointless having a section with one entry in, and even more pointless to start that section when the entry concerned is not even tall enough yet to qualify.Chillysnow (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong agree with both of the above. Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Simply, i agree. --Jklamo (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I will change it back. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

think you misunderstood what I was trying to do. Below I have given my response and below that is your response that you previously gave me. I think there is misunderstanding.

-There is not only one structure taller than 600 meters. There are atleast 10 or 20 structues in the category. You misunderstand, I am not creating a whole new section for buildings greater than 650 meters. I am creating a category for structures BETWEEN 600 AND 650 METERS. There already exists atleast 20 structures that are between 600 and 650 meters. I am just keeping with the pattern, by saying 600 to 650 meters instead of over 600 meters. I am not talking about buildings greater than 650 meters. I am talking about structures between 600 and 650 meters.

You said: Maldek, the reason I reverted you edit is because it would be really wierd to only have one building in a section. There is no point to create a whole new section for structures greater than 650 m if there is only one. Once there is a reasonble number of buildings greater than 600 m, then we can create a "Greater tan 650 m" section. Also, the Burj Dubai has not even risen above 650 m yet, so there is no point to get the section titles ready for that yet. I will open a discussion about this at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world so other users can voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) -Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Leitmanp"

Maldek (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maldek, I think you were in fact talking about the Burj Dubai and creating a new category for that building. You made this edit and said "Maintain the pattern. So when the Burj Dubai is over 650 meters it will be put in another category. Why disrupte pattern?" Also, there is no purpose to limit a section to only 50 m if it includes the tallest in the world. Limiting a section to 600-650 m would just be foolish. I will change it back. If you still want it to be 600-650 m, then discuss it here and do not change it back. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai Category

Fine if you won't give Burj Dubai it's own category and acknowlege its acheivement of being taller than the other buildings than no building will be acknowleged. By this reasoning there should not be any categories. If you don't want to keep with the pattern of 50 meter categories than we can't have any categories. All of them will now be over 400 meters because it is not fair if you don't give Burj Dubai it's own category. Thus all of the Buildings will just say over 400 Meters. You are advocating double standards that you are not playing by your own rules. Okay fine, you can have it your way, now all buildings will be over 400 Meters. You can't have it both ways. Either you choose to make different categories for every 50 meters or you just make all you buildings over a certain height. It seems to me that you would rather have all buildings over a certain height instead of different categories as you state imaginary rules that one building can't be in a category but you fail to show me where it states that. So I will go along with you and make all buildings into one category over 400 meters to stop the fight. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. My opinion is to keep headlines (categories) as they were in article for more than one year, thus is consensus about them and you need found consesnus about changing them. So Maledek, please stop your reverts. --Jklamo (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes!!! Merge it! --70.146.127.147 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maldek, let me try and explain this in clear language. I accept your point that if we are to split the page up into 50m categories, then logically Burj Dubai would, when it qualifies, be put into the next 650-700m category. Indeed, this 50m policy was arrived at by consensus. However, another policy that has been arrived at by consensus is that there needs to be sufficient entries in any new category before it merits being created. Furthermore, the "sufficient entries" policy overrides the "50m" policy, again by consensus. Therefore, logically, we keep the existing 50m categories except where there are insufficient entries to merit creating the next highest category, in which case the topmost category just contains all entries above a certain level. Hopefully this should now be clear.Chillysnow (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of supertall structures

You should merge it because it is the same list. --65.2.36.252 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, problem is the size of both list, this article is 86 kilobytes long, List of supertall structures is 58 kilobytes long. Per Wikipedia:Article size > 100 KB is unacceptable size, that is why i split old list and create these articles. --Jklamo (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Problem: 'supertall' isn't a common word, and there's no way someone would search for 'List of supertall structures' - and they especially wouldn't expect to find a list of structures which are explicitly not the tallest. I think it would be better if, instead of having such a long worldwide list that it has to be divided over two pages, we had a shorter worldwide list and then a set of lists by continent or similar. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think List of supertall structures should be renamed to List of tallest structures - part 2. It's presented as such in the text. Would such a move be reasonable? --Alvestrand (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and renamed the second half to List of tallest structures in the world - 300 to 400 metres. While I was at it, I also split off List of tallest structures in the world - 400 to 500 metres, which reduced the main article to a less unreasonable 49 Kbytes. (The split-off was 55 Kbytes, and what's now "part 3" is 68 Kbytes). If the list grows, we can split again. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KEDB Tower

I was randomly visiting masts via Google Earth, and the KEDB tower, listed as dismantled (no date given) is still present in Google Earth. (Jan 26 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingkey Finance Tower

It is not on the list of buildings under construction http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kingkey_Finance_Tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The image on this article should be of the Burj Dubai

If there is just one picture in this article, it should be of the tallest man made structure, that is the Burj Dubai. Current picture is from the Warsawa Radio Mast in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.215.30 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this EXTREMELY lacking?

There are TONS of antenna towers over 500 meters not listed here. How can this be? Or is there something I don't know; like that these were measured in some way that doesn't count: WVIA-TV and WNEP-TV Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not mentioned by their actual height in the articles; they were listed by their HAAT; which is total garbage. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the case with the WJZY Transmitter, listed as being "2,000 feet tall" in the article? --Cruncher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

'Planned' Structures

The article itself mentions, right before the list, that "Structures under construction are included in main list if its current height is over 500 metres (1,640 ft)." Hence, 'planned' structures should not be included; I have corrected three entries listed as 'planned'; acquiring a permit for construction does NOT mean a building will see completion. The three entries I corrected:

• Pegasus Broadcasting Tower: Apparently completed. FCC registry still lists the status as "application granted," though a look at the location given shows there is indeed a rather tall mast there; given by the shadows compared to the nearby building, I'm removing the 'planned' tag, though it'd be better if there was better verification of it being completed.
• CBC Real Estate Tower Auburn: Accoding to the FAA registry, the registration for this mast has been canceled. And a look at the map Shows that at the location, there's only one mast: the already-built WNCN Tower.
• Beasley Tower: Possibly under construction or completed. A look at its location reveals that last time it was photographed, there was what very much looks like a mast construction site. However, because there's absolutely zero verifiable source to show that it HAS reached the requisite 500 meters in height, it's removed from the list. Contrast this to the Pegasus Tower, where the included Geohack link can at least show an image of it completed.

Granted, I recognize some of the caveats over relying on satellite imagery that can be years outdated, however the mentioned items in the list are themselves based on years-old data, and inclusion is all about verifiability. Hence, structures where at least a marginal amount of verifiability can be achieved is better than none, and those with none must be removed, regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Nottheking (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

World's tallest "fill in blank"

These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

bgcolor=#cedff2

Is there a valid reason why United States entries have bgcolor=#cedff2 for each entry? If not I will remove. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

Why don't all of the fields in the tables sort correctly? Ardric47 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

American Towers Tower Randleman

American Towers Tower Randleman has the wrong coordinates which point to the WFMY Tower across the lake. The correct coordinates are: N 35 52' 2.6" W 79 49' 25.4" http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=621217 166.248.129.195 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)stargate

Oceania or Australia

A recent edit added the Lualualei VLF transmitter to the current list by continent. The edit leaves that table listing both Lualualei in Oceania and VLF Transmitter Woodside in Australia. I thought Australia was in Oceania, while on the other hand I don't ever recall seeing Hawaii described as being in Oceania but instead part of North America by virtue of Hawaii being one of the 50 United States of America. So what to do: Remove Woodside since it is shorter than Lualualei, or remove Lualualei since it is not in Oceania?

Looking deeper, I see the Oceania article says it includes Hawaii, as does List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, yet List of Oceanian countries by population doesn't mention Hawaii at all. Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template produces poor PDF (print) output

PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending elements appear to be caused by the separation of the tables and images. Refer to this Wikipedia (list-type) article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables with images -- https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships Printchecker (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Centralized page move discussion

There is a centralized discussion about whether or not to remove "in the world" from this and roughly fifteen other articles.

Please comment here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52#Global superlatives

Thank you,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oil platforms

Is there a reason why some oil platforms are included on the list, but not tension-leg platforms? Guinness World Records considers the Magnolia ETLP to be the world's tallest structure, but it's not present in this list. 2601:644:1:B7CB:DD1C:ACA3:5314:CD70 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Petronius Platform location

The article described the location as "High Seas (US Exclusive Economic Zone)" however these terms are contradictory. See International Waters for details. Checking the location co-ordinates in the article shows that it is indeed well within the US EEZ, although outside of territorial waters. On the basis of those co-ordinates, I have removed the apparently erroneous reference to "High Seas". US EEZ seems to be the best description of its location for the purpose of the table. 203.213.126.226 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tallest structures in the universe?

89.245.157.175 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

WNCN, WRAL, WTVD transmitters Auburn or Garner, NC?

All three of these transmitters are located in very close proximity. In the list, the WRAL HDTV Mast and WTVD Tower are listed as being in Auburn, NC, but the WNCN Tower is listed as being in Garner, NC, despite its article stating that the transmitter is located in Auburn. The addresses for all three towers on google maps are listed as in Garner, but they don't seem to be within the city's borders. Should the entries in the table be changed to all say Auburn or to all say Garner? Horse Battery (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)